(4) local (occurring commonly through the world, as well
as nationally/continentally to regionally, but especially
important to local communities). Levels of significance
of geoheritage features of (and in) estuaries are illustrated
in Figure 3.
Geodiversity and geoparks
It is important to note that just as biological systems are
diverse, geological systems are also diverse
(geodiversity), as are estuarine systems. For instance,
using analogues of “wetlands” and “dunes” to illustrate
geodiversity, the terms “wetland” and “dune” carry implications of a large array of wetland types and dune forms.
Thus, wetlands may be lakes, sumplands, damplands,
paluslopes, and palusmonts (Semeniuk and Semeniuk,
1995) or in the terms of the Ramsar Convention Bureau
(1991), fens, marshes, ponds, oases, etc. Dunes may be
linear, parabolic, hairpin, star, or barchan, among others.
Estuaries carry the same degree of geodiversity, as exemplified by variation in their setting, shape, size, estuarine
landforms, hydrology, sedimentary processes, diagenesis,
and internal functioning and can be classified as estuarine
types. They also carry geodiversity in their history as
expressed in their geomorphology, paleogeomorphology,
and stratigraphy. Similar to the objective of nature conservation, to conserve the vast diversity of life forms, an
objective of the conservation of sites of geoheritage significance in estuaries would be the conservation of the variety of their forms on the earth. In this context, the
conservation of a single “estuary” as an example of an
estuarine system as representative of the full variety of
estuarine types globally is insufficient (or to use the
“dune” analogue, the conservation of a single parabolic
dune form in one area as representative of the full variety
of dune types globally is insufficient). If estuaries, for
instance, exhibit a large diversity of geometric and hydrologic types, stratigraphic fills, and origins, then at the least,
their conservation should encompass an example of each
of the types extant.
Large sites of geoheritage significance or an amalgamation of numerous smaller sites of geoheritage significance can be assigned to geopark status where there is
geoconservation of an ensemble of geological features.
The Global Geoparks initiative supported by UNESCO
defines a geopark as a territory encompassing one or more
sites of scientific importance, not only for geological reasons but also by virtue of its archaeological, ecological,
or cultural value. As such, this type of geopark crosses discipline boundaries and integrates geological, archaeological, ecological, or cultural endeavors. The European
Geoparks Network, established in 2000 (Zouros, 2000),
defines a geopark as an area to conserve and valorize geological heritage through the integrated and sustainable
development of their territories. The Asia Pacific
Geoparks Network, founded in 2007, defined a geopark
as a nationally protected area containing a number of geological heritage sites of particular importance, rarity, or
aesthetic appeal. These earth heritage sites are part of an
integrated concept of protection, education, and sustainable development. All these initiatives aim to protect
geodiversity, promote geological heritage, and support
local sustainable economic development, thus involving
community and commercial interests.
Estuaries lend themselves to allocation as geoparks
because they inherently have multiple use (fishing,
boating, shoreline nature walks, areas of conservation for
waterbirds) and often illustrate landscape and geology that
can be used for science and education. Also, as the interface between marine and freshwater, with a multitude of
processes operating internally, in terms of geomorphology, sedimentology, and microscale features, they provide
a wealth.
Brocx and Semeniuk (2009) valorized the WalpoleNornalup Inlet Estuary in Western Australia and identified
it as a potential geopark, wherein the various Cainozoic
and Holocene geological features could be used as features for nature tours. Thus, estuaries can be viewed as
geoparks, i.e., as conservation, promotional entities
focused on geological and geomorphological attributes
for local sustainable development. To provide
a comparative example, using a biological analogue, if
a region can be conserved for its biological attributes and
biodiversity, and called a “Nature Reserve,” the same
rationale can be applied to areas manifesting ensembles
of interrelated significant geological and geomorphological features. The former can be considered to be worthy
of conservation as a “biopark,” and the latter can be considered to be worthy of conservation as a “geopark.” Once
protected in conservation parks, both can be utilized for
local socioeconomical sustainable development through
ecotourism or geotourism (i.e., as “biotours” or as
“geotours”) and for science and education. With estuaries,
the ensemble and interacting biological and geological
features underscore the principles that biological systems
are, in part, determined by abiotic factors and that
“biodiversity is underpinned by geodiversity.”
Summary
Geoheritage and geoconservation are important management and conservation endeavors that can and should be
applied to estuaries and their internal functioning and
environments. While there has been emphasis to date on
the biotic or biological significance of estuaries, e.g., in
terms of their vegetation complexes; their productivity,
fisheries, and avifauna; and hence their conservation and
management, there has been less focus on the importance
of their abiotic significance, i.e., their geological, sedimentological, hydrological, and geo-evolutionary attributes for purposes of geoheritage and geoconservation
and for their allocation and inscriptions as geoparks.
Geoheritage and geoconservation can be directed to the
recognition and preservation of the abiotic realms of estuaries. For instance, estuaries of geoheritage significance
can be assessed as to their global, national, regional, or
342
GEOHERITAGE
as nationally/continentally to regionally, but especially
important to local communities). Levels of significance
of geoheritage features of (and in) estuaries are illustrated
in Figure 3.
Geodiversity and geoparks
It is important to note that just as biological systems are
diverse, geological systems are also diverse
(geodiversity), as are estuarine systems. For instance,
using analogues of “wetlands” and “dunes” to illustrate
geodiversity, the terms “wetland” and “dune” carry implications of a large array of wetland types and dune forms.
Thus, wetlands may be lakes, sumplands, damplands,
paluslopes, and palusmonts (Semeniuk and Semeniuk,
1995) or in the terms of the Ramsar Convention Bureau
(1991), fens, marshes, ponds, oases, etc. Dunes may be
linear, parabolic, hairpin, star, or barchan, among others.
Estuaries carry the same degree of geodiversity, as exemplified by variation in their setting, shape, size, estuarine
landforms, hydrology, sedimentary processes, diagenesis,
and internal functioning and can be classified as estuarine
types. They also carry geodiversity in their history as
expressed in their geomorphology, paleogeomorphology,
and stratigraphy. Similar to the objective of nature conservation, to conserve the vast diversity of life forms, an
objective of the conservation of sites of geoheritage significance in estuaries would be the conservation of the variety of their forms on the earth. In this context, the
conservation of a single “estuary” as an example of an
estuarine system as representative of the full variety of
estuarine types globally is insufficient (or to use the
“dune” analogue, the conservation of a single parabolic
dune form in one area as representative of the full variety
of dune types globally is insufficient). If estuaries, for
instance, exhibit a large diversity of geometric and hydrologic types, stratigraphic fills, and origins, then at the least,
their conservation should encompass an example of each
of the types extant.
Large sites of geoheritage significance or an amalgamation of numerous smaller sites of geoheritage significance can be assigned to geopark status where there is
geoconservation of an ensemble of geological features.
The Global Geoparks initiative supported by UNESCO
defines a geopark as a territory encompassing one or more
sites of scientific importance, not only for geological reasons but also by virtue of its archaeological, ecological,
or cultural value. As such, this type of geopark crosses discipline boundaries and integrates geological, archaeological, ecological, or cultural endeavors. The European
Geoparks Network, established in 2000 (Zouros, 2000),
defines a geopark as an area to conserve and valorize geological heritage through the integrated and sustainable
development of their territories. The Asia Pacific
Geoparks Network, founded in 2007, defined a geopark
as a nationally protected area containing a number of geological heritage sites of particular importance, rarity, or
aesthetic appeal. These earth heritage sites are part of an
integrated concept of protection, education, and sustainable development. All these initiatives aim to protect
geodiversity, promote geological heritage, and support
local sustainable economic development, thus involving
community and commercial interests.
Estuaries lend themselves to allocation as geoparks
because they inherently have multiple use (fishing,
boating, shoreline nature walks, areas of conservation for
waterbirds) and often illustrate landscape and geology that
can be used for science and education. Also, as the interface between marine and freshwater, with a multitude of
processes operating internally, in terms of geomorphology, sedimentology, and microscale features, they provide
a wealth.
Brocx and Semeniuk (2009) valorized the WalpoleNornalup Inlet Estuary in Western Australia and identified
it as a potential geopark, wherein the various Cainozoic
and Holocene geological features could be used as features for nature tours. Thus, estuaries can be viewed as
geoparks, i.e., as conservation, promotional entities
focused on geological and geomorphological attributes
for local sustainable development. To provide
a comparative example, using a biological analogue, if
a region can be conserved for its biological attributes and
biodiversity, and called a “Nature Reserve,” the same
rationale can be applied to areas manifesting ensembles
of interrelated significant geological and geomorphological features. The former can be considered to be worthy
of conservation as a “biopark,” and the latter can be considered to be worthy of conservation as a “geopark.” Once
protected in conservation parks, both can be utilized for
local socioeconomical sustainable development through
ecotourism or geotourism (i.e., as “biotours” or as
“geotours”) and for science and education. With estuaries,
the ensemble and interacting biological and geological
features underscore the principles that biological systems
are, in part, determined by abiotic factors and that
“biodiversity is underpinned by geodiversity.”
Summary
Geoheritage and geoconservation are important management and conservation endeavors that can and should be
applied to estuaries and their internal functioning and
environments. While there has been emphasis to date on
the biotic or biological significance of estuaries, e.g., in
terms of their vegetation complexes; their productivity,
fisheries, and avifauna; and hence their conservation and
management, there has been less focus on the importance
of their abiotic significance, i.e., their geological, sedimentological, hydrological, and geo-evolutionary attributes for purposes of geoheritage and geoconservation
and for their allocation and inscriptions as geoparks.
Geoheritage and geoconservation can be directed to the
recognition and preservation of the abiotic realms of estuaries. For instance, estuaries of geoheritage significance
can be assessed as to their global, national, regional, or
342
GEOHERITAGE